A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question on Owner Produced Interior parts



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 04, 10:37 PM
NW_PILOT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question on Owner Produced Interior parts

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!


  #2  
Old July 15th 04, 03:29 AM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"NW_PILOT" wrote:

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!



The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.
  #3  
Old July 15th 04, 04:02 AM
Bill Zaleski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:29:35 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
"NW_PILOT" wrote:

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!



The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.


The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.

  #4  
Old July 15th 04, 05:57 AM
Jim Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that you've
fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum just to
keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum. They
don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.

Jim




Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
-must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
-You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
-obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
-a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com
  #5  
Old July 15th 04, 02:50 PM
Bill Denton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.

It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that

you've
fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum

just to
keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum.

They
don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.

Jim




Bill Zaleski
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
-must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
-You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
-obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
-a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com



  #6  
Old July 15th 04, 04:15 PM
Jay Masino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.owning Bill Denton wrote:
But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


I'd be surprised to see any insurance policy with that exact wording,
because that would effectively prevent you from getting modern avionics
installed. Ususally there's language to the effect of the airwortiness
certificate must be in full effect. There are provisions in the FARs for
owner produced parts, so that wouldn't "neccessarily" effect the
airworthiness.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com
  #7  
Old July 15th 04, 09:15 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bill Denton wrote:
But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.

It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


That's pure crap. Having been thru an insurance claim and seeing many
others on the field do likewise it's fairly painless to total an
airplane or even just get a large payout. The insurance company will
send a rep out to look at the wreckage. Assuming you didn't add another
wing somewhere just for the hell of it you can expect to be paid off in
less than 30 days.

  #8  
Old July 15th 04, 11:26 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.

It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


If somebody buys insurance that is that restrictive they deserve it. I
doubt your scenario has ever come into play. If it has please cite.




  #9  
Old July 15th 04, 02:35 PM
James M. Knox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Zaleski wrote in
:

The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.


True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
trim" there is in the interior. G

  #10  
Old July 15th 04, 08:35 PM
NW_PILOT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message
2...
Bill Zaleski wrote in
:

The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.


True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
trim" there is in the interior. G


That's my point decorative trim, there are things like Bezels, overlays,
seatbelt holders, mike holders, foot pads on the carpet, fuel selector
placecard on the carpet, plastic seat backs, dash eyebrow's and many other
trim items that are flimsy brittle plastic that dull out and break. With
today's technology on alloys almost the same thing could be made out of
another material it may weigh few grams more than stock and it will be a lot
stronger and will last longer saving me a lot of money in future replacement
parts. As another post said most all of these materials can be found as
surpluss "scrap" for very little money andf only thing lost would be my time
for making the part and I know I have more time than money.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? Netgeek Home Built 5 November 23rd 04 05:59 AM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM
Partnership Question Harry Gordon Owning 4 August 16th 03 11:23 PM
STC question John Galban Owning 1 August 9th 03 01:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.